Diagnostic value of tuberculin skin test, interferon gamma release assay and nucleic acid test in tuberculosis

doi:10.19871/j.cnki.xfcrbzz.2023.04.013

Abstract

Abstract: Objective To investigate the value and difference of three diagnostic technologies, tuberculin skin test (TST), interferon gamma release assay assay (TB-IGRA) and nucleic acid test technology (NAT) in detection of tuberculosis. Method A total of 206 suspected tuberculosis patients admitted to the hospital from January 2021 to December 2021 were selected. Among them, 106 patients diagnosed with tuberculosis were divided into research group (17 new patients and 89 patients have been treated 1-2 months), and 100 patients with other pulmonary diseases were divided into control group. Two groups of patients were given TST, TB-IGRA and NAT detection, and the clinical value of these three detection methods was analyzed. Result The positive rates of the three detection methods in the research group were significantly higher than those in the control group (P<0.05); Compared with TST, the positive rates of TB-IGRA and NAT tests in the research group were higher, while the positive rates of TB-IGRA and NAT tests in the control group were lower, with a statistically significant difference (P<0.05); There was no statistically significant difference in TB-IGRA and NAT detection between new patients and patients with 1-2 month treatment (P>0.05); The coincidence rate, sensitivity, specificity of TB-IGRA and NAT detection were higher than those of TST detection, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). Conclusion TB-IGRA and NAT have high diagnostic coincidence rates for tuberculosis, and both have high sensitivity and specificity.

Key words: Tuberculin skin test, Tuberculosis interferon gamma release assay, Nucleic acid test, Tuberculosis

CLC Number:

R521

Wu Duochi, Liang Aiqun, Wu Yeying, Yun Fei. Diagnostic value of tuberculin skin test, interferon gamma release assay and nucleic acid test in tuberculosis[J]. Electronic Journal of Emerging Infectious Diseases, 2023, 8(4): 60-63.

References

[1] 耿燕, 曹建林, 赵景义, 等. 检测技术在结核病诊断中的临床应用价值[J]. 中国药物与临床,2020, 20(24):4173-4174.
[2] WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION.Global tuberculosis report2022[R]. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2022, Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.
[3] WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION.Global tuberculosis report2020[R]. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2020, Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.
[4] 宋敏,陆普选,方伟军,等.2022年WHO全球结核病报告:全球与中国关键数据分析[J/CD].新发传染病电子杂志,2023,8(1):87-92.
[5] 樊晖, 陈剑锋, 刘玉美, 等. TST和IGRAs检测在肺结核和非结核性肺病鉴别诊断中的价值初探[J]. 国际医药卫生导报, 2021, 27(12):1741-1745.
[6] 潘丽萍, 高孟秋, 贾红彦, 等. 新型结核分枝杆菌特异性细胞免疫反应检测技术对结核病辅助诊断的价值评估[J]. 中华结核和呼吸杂志, 2021, 44(5):443-449.
[7] 中华人民共和国国家卫生和计划生育委员会.肺结核诊断标准(WS 288-2017)[J/CD]. 新发传染病电子杂志, 2018, 3(1):59-61.
[8] 赵雁林,逄宇,等. 结核病实验室检验规程[M]. 北京:人民卫生出版社,2006, 30-51.
[9] 张宏军, 王德翠. 干扰素体外释放酶联免疫检验技术在结核病诊断中的应用[J]. 中国社区医师, 2018, 34(23):118-119.
[10] 黄德东, 刘庭贵, 张云, 等. γ-干扰素释放试验在活动性肺结核诊断中的价值[J/CD]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2020, 13(3):329-333.
[11] 杨硕, 李贵霞, 李文辉, 等. 3种检测方法在儿童活动性结核病诊断中的应用[J]. 国际检验医学杂志,2021, 42(6):711-715.
[12] LIN W, LIU Z, ZHANG Y, et al.Diagnostic Value of TB-IGRA, PPD, TB-DNA-PCR and TB-Ab in Silicosis Complicated with Tuberculosis[J]. J Tub Res, 2021, 9(2):110-116.
[13] CHOI YS, KIM S.The Comparison Study between Tuberculin Skin Test and Interferon Gamma Release Assay in BCG-Vaccinated Healthy Donors[J]. Biomed Sci Lett, 2018, 24(2):138-142.
[14] 王雪春, 潘稚芬, 陈灵芝, 等. TB-IGRA联合其他检测方法在结核筛查中的应用研究[J]. 中国现代医生, 2018, 56(36):85-88.
[15] 符雄,符林琳,符秋叶,等. T细胞斑点试验与痰涂片检查在成人不同年龄段肺结核诊断中的结果分析[J/CD].新发传染病电子杂志,2022, 7(4):53-56.
[16] 中华医学会结核病学分会. 结核分枝杆菌γ-干扰素释放试验及临床应用专家意见(2021年版)[J].中华结核和呼吸杂志, 2022, 45(2):143-150.